[wireless-regdb] [PATCH] wireless-regdb: Add back regulatory rules for US

[Daiwei Li]

Sure. Updated patch below:

The FCC approved UNII devices operating in the
5470 - 5725MHz range with radar detection and DFS
capabilities. See the [1] source for details.

[1] https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/kdb/forms/FTSSearchResultPage.cfm?id=41732&switch=P

Signed-off-by: Daiwei Li <daiweili at suitabletech.com>
---
 db.txt |    2 ++
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

diff --git a/db.txt b/db.txt
index df7f7b1..59b4c28 100644
--- a/db.txt
+++ b/db.txt
@@ -1125,6 +1125,8 @@ country US: DFS-FCC
        (2402 - 2472 @ 40), (30)
        (5170 - 5250 @ 80), (17), AUTO-BW
        (5250 - 5330 @ 80), (23), DFS, AUTO-BW
+       (5490 - 5600 @ 80), (23), DFS
+       (5650 - 5710 @ 40), (23), DFS
        (5735 - 5835 @ 80), (30)
        # 60g band
        # reference: http://cfr.regstoday.com/47cfr15.aspx#47_CFR_15p255
--

On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 7:33 AM, Seth Forshee
<seth.forshee at canonical.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 12:37:20PM +0200, Jouni Malinen wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 07:42:12PM -0800, Daiwei Li wrote:
>> > We've found that our devices can't seem to operate on certain
>> > frequencies (e.g. 5660MHz) being used by access points like the Apple
>> > Airport Extreme and Asus RT-AC68U. I did a git bisect and found that
>> > 31dc1c5eca29d039ac8f26340defe44bd7e497c1 removed that band amongst
>> > others. A more recent [1] FCC source implies that these frequencies
>> > should be usable with DFS.
>> >
>> > Does anyone know the source for the commit that removed these frequencies from?
>>
>> I'm not sure what the exact rationale for that part of the commit was.
>>
>> > @@ -1125,6 +1125,8 @@ country US: DFS-FCC
>> >         (2402 - 2472 @ 40), (30)
>> >         (5170 - 5250 @ 80), (17), AUTO-BW
>> >         (5250 - 5330 @ 80), (23), DFS, AUTO-BW
>> > +       (5490 - 5600 @ 80), (23), DFS, AUTO-BW
>> > +       (5650 - 5710 @ 40), (23), DFS, AUTO-BW
>> >         (5735 - 5835 @ 80), (30)
>>
>> AUTO-BW does not seem to make much sense here since neither new range
>> has immediately neighboring ranges with different flags.
>
> Good point. Daiwei, care to send an updated patch?